Abstract:Background: Stings by insects can precipitate many signs and symptoms of dermatological and ocular diseases. Of particular importance is the anaphylaxis after Hymenoptera stings. Selection of the appropriate venom for immunotherapy requires a precise diagnosis, which is frequently difficult to confirm since the history presented by the patient is many times not conclusive and diagnostic tests are often positive for bee venom (BV) and vespula venom (VV). This double positivity is either caused by true double sensitization or by antibodies cross-reactive to homologous peptide sequences or to cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs). In this study, we analyzed in 39 patients, tested positive for specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) against BV and VV and CCDs whether the routine detection of sIgE against the recombinant species-specific major allergens (SSMAs) rApi m1 and rVes v5 enables the discrimination between genuine double sensitization and cross reactivity and therefore may be superior to other in vitro assays such as IgE-inhibition test or the basophil activation test. Materials and methods: Thirty-nine patients each with allergic reactions to vespula and/or honey bee stings and tested positive for sIgE antibodies against CCDs were analyzed for sIgE against BV, VV, CCDs (MUFX3) and SSMAs by UNICAP (CAP) and to BV, VV, bromelain, horseradish peroxidase and ascorbat oxidase by Immulite 2000 (IMMU). In 12 cases results from a basophil activation test, in nine cases results from IgE-inhibition assays and in 10 cases an unambiguous history of the patient were taken into consideration. Results: A definite diagnosis could be assigned to each patient: sensitization to BV n = 7, sensitization to VV n = 29 and true double sensitization to both venoms n = 3. Detection of sIgE against BV and VV by CAP leads in three cases to the diagnosis BV allergy, in 35 cases to the diagnosis double sensitization and in one case to the diagnosis VV allergy. Detection of sIgE against BV and VV by IMMU leads in five cases to the diagnosis BV allergy, in 27 cases to the diagnosis double sensitization and in seven cases to the diagnosis VV allergy. Detection of sIgE against rApi m1 and rVes v5 by CAP leads in six cases to the diagnosis BV allergy, in eight cases to the diagnosis double sensitization, in 21 cases to the diagnosis VV allergy and in four cases to a false double-nagative result implicating no allergy. Discussion and conclusion: Detection of sIgE to rApi m 1 and rVes v 5 by CAP is the most reliable diagnostic procedure to discriminate between true double sensitization and cross reactivity in patients with double-positive IgE results to venom extracts in the presence of sIgE against CCDs. In this study, however, we demonstrate that in nine of 39 patients tested positive for sIgE against CCDs, even the allergen component based diagnostic produces false double-positive and also false double-negative test results. Thus, we conclude that especially in hard to diagnose CCD positive patients beside the detection of sIgE, in vitro assays such as the IgE-inhibition test or the basophil activation test are still of importance. Detection of sIgE against only two SSMAs is not sufficient for a precise diagnosis. We propose inclusion of further SSMAs in diagnostic procedures.

Short‐term venom immunotherapy induces desensitization of FcεRI‐mediated basophil response

Hymenoptera Venom Immunotherapy: Immune Mechanisms of Induced Protection and Tolerance

Blood Transcriptomics Identifies Multiple Gene Expression Pathways Associated with the Clinical Efficacy of Hymenoptera Venom Immunotherapy

Clinical features, severity, and immunological changes during venom immunotherapy in children and adults

Results of AutoPap system-assisted and manual cytologic screening. A comparison.

Evaluation of the Cytokine Response Induced by Specific Allergen Immunotherapy in Patients with Vespa velutina Anaphylaxis

Salivary gland epithelial neoplasms in pediatric population: a single-institute experience with a focus on the histologic spectrum and clinical outcome.

Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy: Safety and efficacy of an accelerated induction regimen with depot aluminum adsorbed extracts

Efficacy and safety of hymenoptera venom immunotherapy

Safety and Efficacy of VIT against Wasp Venom in Ultra-Rush Protocols in Patients Older than 60 Years

An Ethnic Identity Scale for East Asian Immigrants

Risk factors for severe sting reactions and side effects during venom immunotherapy

Subcutaneous immunotherapy for bee venom allergy induces epitope spreading and immunophenotypic changes in allergen-specific memory B cells

A therapeutic strategy to target distinct sources of IgE and durably reverse allergy

Value of component based diagnostics in IgE-mediated hymenoptera sting reactions

Correlation between systemic allergen desensitisation and long-term asthma protection in mice following intravenous administration of the live tuberculosis vaccine MTBVAC

Comparison of cytotoxicity methods for studying Vipera ammodytes venom and the anticytotoxic potency of antivenom

COMMD8 changes expression during initial phase of wasp venom immunotherapy

The effect of quinine on outer hair cell shape, compliance and force

Intralymphatic immunotherapy for cat allergy induces tolerance after only 3 injections

Deliberate hymenoptera sting challenge as a diagnostic tool in highly selected venom-allergic patients